Marshall’s Law: the world according to Professor McLuhan

Figure 1: Marshall McLuhan Himself

To start off this post in refection to the last lecture on McLuhan I want to respond to his understanding of the growing cultural gap. He realised youth of the newer generation where reacting to their studies very differently. From experience I can admit that whilst at school and studying Shakespeare this was not my greatest interest what so ever. As McLuhan’s findings suggest, I was more concerned with film, TV, music and video games although I never asked myself why. Is it that these platforms of entertainment are simply more entertaining, are they of a better standard due to the technological rise, are they up to date and more relevant and appealing? Or is it that new generations can’t appreciate the work of the most successful English writer and poet of all time. Are we to arrogant and suck in the rich media world that is available for us today, or is it just simply not important for us to appreciate Shakespeare anymore, and can he really help the new generation to learn when so much has changed since then.

Figure 2: Shakespeare

So I have to ask, when will these modern texts become too mundane that new generations rebel against their teachings?

McLuhan’s distinctive medium definition is very off track to what the majority think of the term media. His idea of mediums is very interesting in that they extend humans sensoriums allowing us to enhance our lives through these objects. Something else of interest was his study on the effect that different mediums had on our lives and how they drew us closer together on new cultural levels.

“McLuhan’s interest in a film has little to do with its content – the plot, the characters and the dialogue. He is interested in the socially significant act of going to see a film: the fact that 200 strangers are gathered in a darkened room staring at images on a flickering wall. The message of the medium of cinema is that 200 people should do this without thinking it strange in any way”. (Phillips, I 2010). Something I have been looking at recently is structuralism which focuses on identifying the signs, where as in this lecture the study goes a lot further behind what is on the screen. I discussed McLuhan briefly in my first post when introducing culture and here I am again looking at his ideas on culture behind mediums.

 Here is a video of McLuhan discussing another of his ideas, The Global Village. This is a very resourceful source and looks at how new technologies (the third age) such as the telephone are bringing the world closer together as we are able to communicate. This is also very similar to the theory of ‘The shrinking world’

Something interesting about McLuhan’s study is his ideas on the three ages, in which during the Pre-Literate/ Tribal/ Oral Age humans had no form of data storage and retrieval which meant their knowledge was limited as they had no way of storing any information. However the print age bought around a new way of storing information until the digital age in which computers bought new levels of data storage and retrieval, but also through the internet, television documentaries etc… Where able to increase the spread and distribution of knowledge and information which became available to the mass. However the argument is that the print age is being destroyed by traditional forms of media such as newspapers.

 http://chewitabc123.wordpress.com/category/a2-media-theory/

Here is a post on another blog of mine discussing the internet’s effect on newspapers.

 

 

Bibliography

Figure 1. Available at: http://marshallmcluhan.com/assets/img/karsh-portrait.jpg [Accessed on 19 November]

Figure 2. Available at: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Shakespeare.jpg/240px-Shakespeare.jpg [Accessed on 19 November 2011]

(2009) Marshall McLuhan – The World is a Global Village (CBC TV). Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeDnPP6ntic&feature=related  [Accessed on 19 November 2011]

Binary opposition

“Binary opposition offers a way of understanding the complex ways that our minds work when they are presented with language and the need to understand what that language means. When we make meaning – and take feeling – from language, much of that meaning and feeling is generated in the mind because the mind is aware – very aware – of the ‘opposite’ aspect of the thing you are making meaning from.” (Campsall, S)

In a more simple way of putting it, we understand what things are, because we know what the opposites are. We know what it is to feel happy because we know what being sad feels like, if we didn’t then we wouldn’t know what being happy is. This is what binary opposition is all about; it is a structuralist term and has been studied by Jacques Derrida, Ferdinand de Saussure, Claude Propp and Claude Levi-Staruss. Deridda developed deconstruction also known as post structuralsim. His critical theory analysed western texts and was a set of rules for reading, interpreting and writting.

Binary opposition is however more complex than this; the theory is very focused on ideologies and is conceptual to one’s personal values. What we see, hear and what we believe are all culturally determined.

Good	Zone of Anomaly	Bad
Life		Death
Light		Dark
Land		Sky/Sea
Day		Night
Male		Feamle
White		Black
Human	Zombie, Monster, alien etc…	Non Human

 Based on this scale, we understand what things are and also we have been able to further explore theories because we are aware of what the opposite is. Something I found interesting was that one side has been traditionally more honoured over the other, although this isn’t so apparent in modern times.

Figure 1: Ok, So it is not very educational but it is a good example of white and black binary opposites.

The zone of anomally is often used in texts in which myths and stories come into play, in a debate which throws them in the middle but lets viwers assign them closer to a side.

“According to Derrida, it has been a characteristic of the western philosophical and scientific tradition since the classical times to think in binary oppositions. Presence opposes absence, speech opposes writing, philosophy opposes literature, the literal opposes the metaphorical, the central opposes the marginal, life opposes death, the real opposes the imaginary, the normal opposes the pathological, etc.” (Appendix 1)

http://www.englishbiz.co.uk/extras/binaryopposition.htm Here is a good overviw of the subject with links to key theorists. It’s a very short account on the matter however it is worth reading to help understand and further devlop your knowledge.

Finally I thought  I would share something which I have done in response to my lecture of “Two Sides to Everything (and a bit in the middle)”. Whilst watching Frankenstein (1931) we were asked to write down all the binary opposites that were presnet in the clip. One that I thought was interesting was the Male Female opposite. I asked myself, in film where mythical creatures are given a sexual identity should it not fall into the zone of anomally. Afterall your sex is defined by your chromosomes and your sexual organs . These creatures are abnormal and it is conventional to question whether they are human or non human and whether they are good or bad so why shoudn’t it be questioned as to whether they are male or female?

Bibliography

Apendix 1. Strategies of deconstruction. Available at: http://www.cobussen.com    /proefschrift/200_deconstruction/   210_hierarchical_oppositions/hierarchical_oppositions.html                                                                                                                                     [Accessed on 18 November 2011]

Campsall, S. (2011) Binary Opposition. Available at:                         http://www.englishbiz.co.uk/extras/binaryopposition.htm                                                                                                                           [ Accessed on 18 November 2011]

Figure 1. Available at:                           http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/12/4/129044438117707959.jpg                                                  [Accessed on 18 November 2011]

Intertextuality

Image 4

Intertextuality is the idea that texts quote ideas from previous work, which, in some cases they develop it, and in some they can even damage it (people argue that in some cases the first film of a trilogy is always the best, and that the idea to continue dragging the story along will damage the films reputation). In broader terms, Intertextuality is the way in which  texts relates to each other. However it is important to remember that this doesn’t mean references to other work are plagiarized, they are simply being reformed (for the majority anyway).

The following are crucial to understanding intertextuality:  Authors can’t control the ways in which their works are read and understood. Authors can’t even fully control the content of their works: inevitably there will be meanings they didn’t intend (Phillips, I 2009).  Stuart Halls Encoding/Decoding theory (1973) is applicable here. Hall stated that the way media texts are received is dependent on their cultural background and experiences. So for one person, the image of war may represent courage, bravery and democracy, to another it may convey thoughts of cruelty and autocracy. This will be down to ones personal values, beliefs and experiences.

The term was coined by Julia Kristeva who argued that texts are not individual, they are a series of culture defined textualities.  She along with others was an important member of structuralism , especially earlier on when it had a major tie in with humanities .

“According to Kristeva, texts do not present clear and stable meanings. They embody society’s conflict over the meaning of words. Thus, intertextuality deals with a text’s existence within society and history.” (Simandan, V M)

http://www.simandan.com/?p=2067 – This blog entry has a very detailed account on Julia Kristeva and her work on intertextuality.

I Think the word and it’s specific meaning are interpreted and discussed very differently, however for me, the basic deconstruction of the word starts with a scale:

For me media texts fall somewhere in between these two definitions, with examples such as Tom Savini’s Night of the Living Dead (1990), a direct remake of Romero’s Night of the Living Dead (1968) being at the top of the spectrum, with Tarantino’s work such as Pulp Fiction being further down. An example to the more subtle use of intertextuality would be in Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs where Vic Vega, Mr. Blonde is Vincent Vega from Pulp Fictions brother and also When Mr. White talks about Alabama, a character in a future film True Romance, written by Quentin Tarantino.

Image 1: The Scary Movie franchise is one of the biggest intertextual references to film

Image 2: This is a photograph by Diane Arbus. Do you recognise it? If you have seen The Shining you should do; this is one of Stanley Kubrik's biggest inspirations that happens to be a massive intertextual reference to his film

Image 3: A shot from The Shining

Of course this scale is very simple and it is very important to understand that nothing is ever original, everything, step by step can be traced back in history to earlier forms of writing and art. Finally, with this in mind the question has to be asked, is any creation ever original? Whilst I would say no, I do think that  everything is a developed product of something else and so I think you can argue that to a degree it has its own unique elements to it.

Bibliography

Chandler, D (2003). Semiotics for Beginners. Available at: http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem09.html [Accessed on 14 November 2011]

Image 1. Available at: http://upload.souq.com/uploaded/110411/de25ae1cd0371573b27417d3bfe9eb19_82802883881302536199.jpg [Accessed on on 14 November 2011]

Image 2. Available at: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hs7QqgP9BQk/Tf495bHqRSI/AAAAAAAAA9A/Ov3m9DQKxHA/s1600/4b51cacc0e03f_big.jpg [Accessed on 14 November 2011]

Image 3. Available at: http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=the+shining+girls&um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1024&bih=458&tbm=isch&tbnid=-rKqnggob6Q2oM:&imgrefurl=http://adampolselli.com/2008/01/06/stanley-kubricks-editing-in-the-shining/&docid=AeH-mwkw_QIKSM&imgurl=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2090/2172893968_51d1937aef.jpg&w=500&h=281&ei=0WTBTpHJFsOx8QOJ7_HSBA&zoom=1 [Accessed on 14 November 2011]

Image 4. Available at: http://0.tqn.com/d/grammar/1/G/c/L/-/-/blackboard_intertextuality_Barthes.jpg [Accessed on 14 November 2011]

Simandan, V M (2010) Kristeva’s concepts of intertextuality. Available at: http://www.simandan.com/?p=2067 [Accessed on 14 November 2011]

Semiotics

Semiotics, the study of signs!

I like the idea that text is a collection of terms, when it comes to actually looking at text I don’t think you realise just how powerful it is. I mean this in the way that the reader takes in what the author is stating (on the grand scale) and very rarely questions it. Often text is a way someone can share their opinionated views to the world but through a passive audience, and with the use of techniques this can be very effective. Advertising, politics, religion and CULTURE are all things which people can discuss in text and these topics in particular are shaped by what people write about them and it is the people that read what others have said that can be easily captured by the way in which someone has made something seem. This is also very evident in images as well, especially advertising (mentioned in the Denotation Connotation post).

Semiotics is the study of signs and the method in which they are used to create and share meanings. The idea of semiotics is based on 2 elements, the signifier and the signified.

Saussure and Peirce’s work, and the foundations of semiotics

In this case, the signifier is outlining the term (tree) and the signified is portraying what the signifier has stated.

Something interesting I read online was the statement that “signs and meaning are unlimited” (Cline, A). I think this is a very abstract statement to make and can be argued on many different basis. However the level I am going to discuss this  is based on how many times can we, as consumers of media texts read these signs before they become repetitive.

I think that to a degree this statement is true, however audiences of media products become accustomed to the meaning of the message and after a while it becomes repetitive and predictable, you could say that human knowledge of the signs improves and continues to do so until a new style of advertising, designing, writing etc… forms.

Semiotics of Social Networking

 

 

Bibliography

Cline, A. Semiotics. Available at: http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/aesthetics/bldef_semiotics.htm [Accessed on 13 November 2011]

(2009). Lecture Notes: The unit of translation. Available at: http://wwwdrshadiabanjar.blogspot.com/200 [Accessed on 13 November 2011]

WIKIPEDIA. Chart Semiotics of  Social Networking. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chart_Semiotics_of_Social_Networking.jpg [Accessed on 13 November 2011]

Iconic or Arbitrary

So if iconic is how similar a sign is to the thing its representing and arbitrary is how dissimilar a sign is to what its representing, judge what you think these image fall under.

Below are 7 images of symbols and 7 images of their representation in a random order. You can decide whether they are iconic or arbitrary (if you can figure out which image represents the other)

Look below to see how close you where. (top to bottom, left to right numbering. i.e statue is 1, the boat is 6, the national insurance card is 14 etc…)

 

 

 

 

 

 

1&4, 3&10, 5&14, 6&8, 7&2, 9&11, 12&13.

Denotation and Connotation

To me Denotation is what we see, it’s what the eye examines first. This is the structure, the size, the colour, the style etc… of an object, a medium an advertisement and so on.

Connotation is why it is like that and what it means, it’s what it’s trying to represent and tell it’s audience, sometimes it’s very obvious and other times its extremely subtle.

I have created an image to underline the importance of the word ‘Layers’ here, whilst the word denotes the meaning of the sentence, the layers running through it require the viewer to study the sentence a little more for it to create a better sense of understanding.

Here is an image I photographed from a magazine. Now first of all the image denotes a white beach, clear blue waters and crisp palm trees. This is obvious, anyone who looks at this can understand that. However what is it trying to connote? To me it says it’s  a relaxing, quiet, fresh, safe and  a secluded place to be. The advertisers aren’t telling me this, they aren’t misleading me, it’s my mind that’s assuming what this place is like. Although, who says it is. For all I know this place could be the *$!% hole of paradise, a quarter mile away could be the area of drug barons and the red light district (not naming any countries because that wouldn’t be ethical of me). I’m sure it’s not like this however the picture doesn’t say it’s not.

Obviously the example I have given is very extreme but my point is, advertisers know that people will see something, especially in the case of a photo of a holiday destination and instantly assume what it is like based on how they denote it. In many cases of consumerism they will assume it is better than in reality therefore they buy it. This is a clever technique and it works because companies know consumers minds crave high demands and will often assume the best of something.

A great explanation of the two terms and how they differ.

Here is a good account I found online of connotation and denotation in famous TV advertisements.

http://www.stanford.edu/class/linguist34/Unit_03/connotation.htm

Something else covered in the lecture was myths, So i decided to search possibly one of the most debated myths of all time-God. Now I’m not stating whether I believe in God or not but I did find this article which states, “Many intelligent people don’t believe in God because it would acknowledge that there exists something smarter than they are. We all like being in charge.” I do however completely disagree with this statement and think that people aren’t naive enough to not acknowledge that there is someone smarter than them in the world. I personally think it is a stupid statement to make and imply on atheists.

 

 

Bibliography

Cline, A. Myth: Atheists Deny God Because That Accepts Something Smarter Than Them. Available at: http://atheism.about.com/od/knowledgeofreligiongod/a/DenySmartGod.htm [Accessed on 05 November 2011]

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=denotation+black+board&um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1024&bih=458&tbm=isch&tbnid=rpcb08Pem7bsLM:&imgrefurl=http://grammar.about.com/od/d/g/denotationterm.htm&docid=1ezvGub7vl1jUM&imgurl=http://0.tqn.com/d/grammar/1/G/Q/R/-/-/blackboard_denotation.jpg&w=160&h=105&ei=K021TsRW0LPxA-aysegE&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=145&vpy=240&dur=122&hovh=84&hovw=128&tx=84&ty=43&sig=100425941646115903185&page=1&tbnh=84&tbnw=128&start=0&ndsp=12&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0

Sells, P & Gonzalez, S. (2002) The Language of Advertising. Available at: http://www.stanford.edu/class/linguist34/Unit_03/connotation.htm [Accessed on 05 November 2011]

youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqk5RwxKY38 [Accessed on 05 November 2011]

The Model of Communictaion

Although traditionally you would view the telephone as a basic model of communication (obviously there are a lot older forms) there are now a lot more forms available, mobile phones, the internet, television etc, all bound by the digital age which has taken over the analogue systems in which a lot of the models and ideas in this lecture were based on.  Whilst reading through the lecture notes about communication and feedback from the receiver, and that the loop is broken if no one is there to answer the question, it provoked thoughts of my own.   With traditional forms of communication that stretch back to books the loop is broken if the reader is in doubt about what they are reading, however fast forward to the digital age and the Smartphone craze. If someone gets lost reading an e book, the loop can extend to the internet to source its answers, this creates a more complex however never ending loop of feedback.

This is Wilbur Schramm’s 1954 communication model in which it clearly depicts the loop of communication between a transmitter and receiver, with the message being decoded, then interpreted, this is the person analysing the message they have received which allows them to the repeat this process.

Although rather basic, this video conveys the foundations of the Shannon and weaver communication model and it is very informative and easy to follow.

Models Of Communication Intro-1

Finally I am ending this post with this link to a detailed account into the model of communication. This document goes past Shannon and Weaver and looks at Gerbner (1956) as well as Westley & MacLean (1957) as well as other theorists to give a good knowledge and in depth background to communication.

 

 

Bibliography

http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/short/Images/shaweav.gif [Accessed on 21 November 2011]

http://www.shkaminski.com/Classes/images/Schramm%27s%20Model%202.gif [Accessed on 21 November 2011]

(2009). Communication Theory. Available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQSL8aqTDLg [Accessed on 21 November 2011]

(2011). Models Of Communication. Available at: www.geoffbarton.co.uk [Accessed on 21 November 2011]

 

Cultures

Interesting The Union Jack is at the centre of the world. Coincidental or intentional?
Probably intentional, It’s trying to say the UK is at the centre of the universe, it’s culture is the foundation for all else.
What do you think?

 

Available at: http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=world+cultures&um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1024&bih=458&tbm=isch&tbnid=wzjmwMyb7B4EfM:&imgrefurl=https://sites.google.com/a/maine207.org/kellam-s-classes/world-cultures&docid=ScMtHRVF_LyMJM&imgurl=http://static3.echalk.net/www/drvcny_sspjschool/images/World%252520Cultures%252520Day.jpg&w=225&h=225&ei=tl21TuysGMb28QPh17mFBQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=1054&sig=100425941646115903185&page=1&tbnh=103&tbnw=103&start=0&ndsp=14&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0&tx=47&ty=66 [Accessed on 04 November 2011]

Rough Magic

The first lecture, Rough magic introduced Media, History and Culture individually as collective terms.  I thought that considering it was the first lecture in the module, Media Histories and Cultures,  it was a good starting point to introduce and identify what each of the key meanings are.

I thought that the reference to Marshall McLuhan’s book Understanding Media and the discussion of mediums being an extension of the human body was very intriguing. However whilst these things exist Todd Kappleman interestingly stated that these mediums amputate other extensions (Kappleman 2002). You could argue  such big industries like film  are killing off more traditional forms such as theater and cars which are an extension of the legs are destroying a rich culture in walking which in turn is having a big knock on effect on the way we as a civilization develop.

The lectures take on that History isn’t factual information for us to accept, it’s not for us to be a passive audience, It’s for us to question every detail and argue how accurate the sources that we are given are. I completely agree but I do think that it gets to a point that you can’t prove wrong and argue against the information which is available, hence in the end we do inevitably become a very passive audience.

“Few people, if asked, would deny having a culture” (Phillips 2010: 5). In response to this statement i think that if people deny having a culture its because they don’t truly understand the term. It was already stated that It’s one of the hardest terms to understand and grasp, therefore its understandable that a lot of people would. I think that today Culture is very diffferen’t to what it was 50 years ago. I do personally believe that morals and beliefs aren’t as strong as what they were and that peoples values have changed, whilst this is due to a change in society and the environment, cultures are very much shared between one and other.

I found this on Google images and decide to use it as I think It’s a good basic set of ideas about defining culture. Some people might agree some may disagree as everyone has their own idea on what makes culture. The ideas on this image are all ones I agree with but i do think that a lot more can be said. The meals and food we eat, our national holidays and our currency are also things which form our culture, or at least I think anyway.

The Collins English Dictionary defines Culture as; Ideas, customs, and art of a particular society. Although as stated in the lecture there are 10 000 meanings, of which some will be very identical, other will be extremely different. So what makes one definition right or wrong? I would say none of them (to a degree anyway) are wrong, just that some apply more to some and less to others. Since there are 10 000 definitions I thought that I would end this reflection by adding my own to the mass existence as this wouldn’t make much of a difference. (Although it has to be said, it probably already exists).

Culture: The roots of which you originate from and the lifestyle and values you practice which are shaped by society.

 

 

Bibliography

Collins. (2009) English Dictionary: Glasgow: HarperCollins Publishers

Kappleman, T. (2002) Marshall McLuhan: The Medium is the Message. Available at: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/mcluhan.html [Accessed on 04 November 2011]

Phillips, I. (2010) This Rough Magic an introduction to media, history and culture. Available at: http://www.studynet2.herts.ac.uk/crs/11/4MMF0001-0901.nsf/Teaching+Documents?Openview&count=9999&restricttocategory=IMSC+resources [Accessed on 04 November 2011]

(2000) A Cultural Framework.  Available at: http://marketingteacher.com/image/content/terpstra.gif [Accessed on 04 November 2011]